I replied:"That the visuals don't connote the value. They believe the current visual impression on the site doesn't say 'You get extraordinary outcomes and the experience of working with a professional who is a good fit for you personally"
Am I hearing marketing weasel words? "connote value?" "Extraordinary outcomes?" "Good fit for you?"
These sound like credibility problems and stuff I could say about a refrigerator. Credibility has three components. Trustworthiness, expertise, and leadership. How will bigger images improve each of those things? New photos?
They had given a list of companies they wanted to look like. Elegant and expensive stuff. I further commented:
"The "competitions/example" photos (screenshots below) were obviously shot by super pros. Many of your client supplied photos don't even have parallax correction on the rooms and buildings--which is easily fixed with Photoshop or GIMP."
parallax correction wiki >
I agreed they need photos that cover more screen area. But credibility is more than that. It's also in the quality (artistry) of the images.
Or by visual impression, did they mean "first impression" which is a halo effect and more about "subconscious gestalt"? Visual impression is fuzzy.
I suggested they're really concerned about "theming." I bet the theme they desire is "elegance."
No comments:
Post a Comment